Talk:Conservapedia
Whats an article on Conservapedia with out mention of their archenemesis RationalWiki?. 24.141.169.255 16:56, 6 August 2007 (EDT) You can edit the article yourself if you feel that it's lacking. And please feel free to register and join our little community of cheap shot takers and back row hecklers. WillH 01:01, 5 September 2007 (EDT) Sources I know this is a mere parody, but sources will add credibility to our attacks. I would find the articles to cite, but I vowed not to give Conservapedia any more traffic, in the hopes he'll realize the hype is down, and the negative attitude is on the rise. I mean, the majority of their pages are locked (if not all) anyways! Even the talk pages! :I agree. 12.75.67.0 Thrust of article. I can't help but feel that this page needs to have more pointing out of the flaws of Conservapedia. I know we've got Rationalwiki for that, but seriously...I thought this page might have been under Neocon attack for a minute while reading it. --EarningtonStonewall 16:24, 18 September 2007 (EDT) ::Yes, this is a rather strange review or CP. It reads more like an attack on liberal critics. I'm new so I'm reluctant to touch it other than fix some spelling - but could somebody explain the rationality? This should be an important article on this site I feel.--Bob 14:39, 7 October 2007 (EDT) :::Well, as I've not had a response I've been bold and re-written it. I've tried to keep it to the spirit of the site.--Bob 15:06, 10 October 2007 (EDT) ::::I had corrected a bit of grammar and made a few edits - why were they reverted?--Bob 04:32, 13 October 2007 (EDT) Hmm? This isn't right. This is a nonsense article, why is this here? -- Spencer 02:09, 10 January 2008 (EST) From Liberapedia, a Wikia wiki. Conservapedia's down Conservapedia's down! This is almost as exciting as it was when I found out that Liberapedia was moving here and Liberapedia has a secure future.Barbara Shack 09:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC) It's back up, sad.Barbara Shack 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC) FBI? I'm new, what's the FBI Incidnet? Togrutalover 02:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC) When CP reported to the FBI about a bunch of users (two) whom were editing with a bot program, which was obviously a waste of valuable government time. [[User:DillyDally|''DillyDally]]talk 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)'' Serious article I think there should be a seperate, serious article about Conservapedia. With citations. If you would like to write that serious article there is serious material as well as funny material here. Proxima Centauri 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, this page is quite serious. I inteded to post my opinion of Conservapedia on Schlafly's talk page so I've created an account. I got blocked before I could actually do it. It said that I had liberal content in my account's name (account name was MC). The real reason behind it was because I wrote in my page (I did not swear or anything) that the accusations of Obama being a Muslim were pathetic. I did not vandalise Conservapedia. This prooves that "You can be blocked for... using discussion to as a means of improving Conservapedia." so it's quite serious. ThaMarine 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Is It Satire? I was on Conservapedia a little while ago to yell at their stupuidity, when I suddenly thought of something- All these claims seem too stupid for anyone to actually believe. Is it possible that Conservapedia is actually meant to be satirical, but also to appear to be the true beliefs of Conservapedia? Is it possible that some contributors to Conservapedia are actually Liberal and are trying to make Conservatives look as ridiculous as possible without Andy or his crew catching on?... Actually, it's very unlikely, though the latter is much more possible than the latter. Actually, that's a good idea... --Civil Man 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) There are undoubtedly Stealth parodists at Conservapedia, Bugler admitted that. RationalWiki has discussed the possibility that Andrew Schlafly himself is a Deep Liberal, if RationalWiki comes basck on the 6th of September you will be able to look there. Proxima Centauri 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I'm going to do it. If you're wondering what exactly I'm going to do, please read the third suggested courese of action. Yes, I'm going to devestate Conservapedia. I'm sure many have thought of it, but I'M going to do it! I'm not going to mention my username there in case Conservapedia is spying. Though I'm not sure if it's the greatest of ideas. Could I get in any legal trouble? Just wondering, and want to see what everyone thinks. --Civil Man 15:22, September 4, 2009 (UTC) Go for it! Request: On the Germany article, remove some of the Nazi names and replace them with people like Jurgen Prochnow and Wolfgang Petersen. Also, PLEASE write an article about Das Boot and say how wonderful it is at helping us sympathize with the Germans.- JustPhil 15:43, September 4, 2009 (UTC) I don't know what the law is where you live andI don't know what you're planning either. Denial of service is ilegal in most countries if that's what you were considering. Andrew Schlafly has a reputation for making hollow legal threats that he doesn't carry out. Add more stuff about Star Trek and the Federation and how wonderful they are.- JustPhil 20:22, September 4, 2009 (UTC) Eh, forget it. I'm just going to make quality edits and see how long it takes for me to get banned. --Civil Man 17:12, September 5, 2009 (UTC) Actually, too late for that. I just got banned for NOTHING. --Civil Man 17:18, September 5, 2009 (UTC) Commiserations, I'm not surprised with that croud. If you've got a dynamic IP Adress log out of the banned account, wait for your IP to change and start a fresh account, alternatively edit other wikis that are more sensible. Proxima Centauri 18:28, September 5, 2009 (UTC) Did you use an aggressive name rather than "JesusLover1" or something?- JustPhil 19:45, September 5, 2009 (UTC) No. It said I was banned because I was a "sock" of a troll or something like that. My username was MartinLuther. Too obivous? --Civil Man 13:06, September 6, 2009 (UTC) They are regularly paranoid like that. I'm sure you can find better places to edit. Proxima Centauri 15:04, September 6, 2009 (UTC) Bible Someone should start a section about how Conservapedia plans on re-writing the Bible. I would, but I'm not very good at this kind of thing. Nevar00 00:04, October 7, 2009 (UTC) wikiality it's almost as bad (if not worst) than conservapedia it's racist homophobe sexist biased and idiot Wikiality is deliberate satire like Liberapedia, they're really Libruls Stealth parodying Conservatives. Proxima Centauri 09:00, January 14, 2011 (UTC) Try the Wikiality article on the Bible Belt, I wrote most of it. Proxima Centauri 09:07, i saw the article on homosexuality and it was a bit homophobe that's why :s Gab3008 13:31, January 14, 2011 (UTC)